Most people seem to like the Brooklyn Nets’ new logos and color scheme, but one New York Post sports columnist is definitely not a fan. Then again, maybe he just can’t stand the team’s part-owner, rapper Jay-Z.

To go along with their move to Brooklyn, the Nets are sporting a new look: a black-and-white color scheme, which pays homage to the old New York subway signage system, and two new primary logos. Jay-Z, who owns 1.5% of the Nets, played an instrumental role in their design—a fact that clearly makes NY Post writer Phil Mushnick uncomfortable.

Mushnick, who has long been a critic of Jay-Z’s role in the franchise, wrote in his “Equal Time” sports column:

“As long as the Nets are allowing Jay-Z to call their marketing shots — what a shock that he chose black and white as the new team colors to stress, as the Nets explained, their new “urban” home — why not have him apply the full Jay-Z treatment? Why the Brooklyn Nets when they can be the New York N------s? The cheerleaders could be the Brooklyn B----hes or Hoes. Team logo? A 9 mm with hollow-tip shell casings strewn beneath. Wanna be Jay-Z hip? Then go all the way!”

And it didn’t stop there. As furor erupted over what many are calling his “racist rant,” Mushnick tried to turn the story around and pin the blame on Jay-Z.

He said, “Such obvious, wishful and ignorant mischaracterizations of what I write are common. I don't call black men the N-word; I don't regard young women as bitches and whores; I don't glorify the use of assault weapons and drugs. Jay-Z, on the other hand . . . Is he the only NBA owner allowed to call black men N---ers? Jay-Z profits from the worst and most sustaining self-enslaving stereotypes of black-American culture and I'M the racist? Some truths, I guess, are just hard to read, let alone think about.”

There are certainly legitimate points that can be made about the messages conveyed in hip hop, as well as situations that just cry out for satire, but we think that Mushnick missed the mark on both accounts.

What do you think SodaHeads? Who is the racist? Phil Mushnik or Jay-Z?

thats not true, his racist rant starts off “As long as the Nets are allowing Jay-Z to call their marketing shots — what a shock that he chose black and white as the new team colors to stress

what I hate worse than anything on this earth is after someone says something r"racist" they say another "racist white guy" issue.

Mushnick could have said. JZ uses desparging words and he is rude to women.. that would have done it, BUT NOOOOOO

"Why the Brooklyn Nets when they can be the New York N------s? The cheerleaders could be the Brooklyn B----hes or Hoes. Team logo? A 9 mm with hollow-tip shell casings strewn beneath. Wanna be Jay-Z hip? Then go all the way!”

He insulted quit a bit of people.... he is an idiot...

Looks like JZ is the one coming out on top, he is paying for a new arena for the Nets....

I answered "Jay-Z" because I find Jay-Z does perpetuate negative stereotypes about black culture, but I hardly think he's racist for choosing black and white as team colours (I highly doubt he was even considering skin colour when choosing team colours). I could actually see, in a twisted sense, what Mushnick was trying to say. That said, I think Mushnick was really stupid in how he said it (and, upon reading this again, I really don't see why he felt the need to go off on that rant in the first place)... I don't know if I consider him racist, though, or just stupid.

Thank you for explaining that... the comparisons (to the 'redneck' comedians) actually make that a lot more clear for me. I suppose it's similar to my friends and I sitting around and cracking ethnic jokes, gay jokes, women jokes, etc... none of us hold those as actual beliefs. Hell, my step-daughter (who is white) calls her best friend (who is black) "my ni**er" and I certainly wouldn't consider her racist. Yeah, I clearly wasn't thinking things through.

"Racism" is a state of mind that can not be determined by another person (no matter how much you think you can). It is also a term thrown about to the effect that racism no longer possesses any meaning beyond rhetorical demagoguery.

More inane lying; Africa has so many different ethnic groups and cultures. Morocco, South Africa and the list goes on. You are a racist lol; you must have failed in geography. In addition, America would have never been the most powerful nation without diversity.

Nah, multiculturism isn't the exact reason why America has bested some of the longest lasting and most powerful (homogeneous) nations on Earth.

Everyone knows minorities are the root of all evil. Everyone knows black people started two world wars, made atomic weapons, commited genocide, conquered native lands, slaughtered each other for thousands of years in petty conflicts, opressed entire peoples through discrimination and segregation laws, contracted the Black Death from filth and lack of sanitation, stripped entire land masses of their resources, the list goes on. We are awful.

Your answer sounded as if you missed the days of diverse whites being 90% of the population. Anti-white cult? Really? I hope you realize that this country didn't start out predominantly white right? Remember the Navajo? Cherokee? Basically the group commonly referred to as Indians? It was taken over by Europeans, so there was assimilation.

You know, if you had a clue of who you were talking to, you'd look really stupid right now. The reason I brought up the decimation of Indians is because of your ridiculous claim that non-whites are assimilating whites. Here's the thing, I'm aware of the hell that the Irish, Italians, Jews, have caught in this country, but you seem to deny the hell caught by non-whites. And your ridiculous claim just makes you look dumb. You're basically saying that racist is a code word for pro-White.